Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infidel Guy
Infidel Guy was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep
Infidel Guy[edit]
Vanity. --fvw* 05:55, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
Keep: The Infidel Guy forums and radio program are important online components of the actively secular community. However, I think this listing needs to be relabeled a "stub," or else heavily expanded. That means us, guys. ;)X1M43- anonymous user 136.176.110.198 - rernst 13:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: Huh? Vanity? Brianjd
- Nothing exciting in this article (at the moment), but "Infidel Guy" +radio results in over 11,000 Google hits. He does appear to be notable.
Abstaining for now.—[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 06:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) - Keep. He's quite well-known among atheist and freethought groups, although I think this article could probably be happily merged with...uh...maybe Internet Infidels or Freethought. Joyous 06:10, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, but rework. There is only one other freethought internet radio show I can think of. Guests notable.Wikkrockiana 06:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- My first question is, what is the notability test for Internet radio? And how does it compare to the notability test for terrestrial radio? Abstain for now with a leaning towards keep. [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 06:13, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Keep, though with slight reservations. I've heard of him before, but then I don't think he's particularly notable in the field. On the other hand, he's a heck of a lot more worthy of an entry than a lot of things that routinely get approved to stay. The article could use a touch of NPOV rewrite so it sounds a little less like a press release or a tweak of theist types, though.OK, now I am switching to Delete -- Why? Because somebody has gone and made a new article using his real name as the title. There is absolutely no reason why this person should have two articles. The new article also has NPOV problems (and for the love of Pete, they are treating Landover Baptists as a real site worth citing? Morons, that's like referencing The Onion as a real news source. DreamGuy 04:39, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)- Delete: A small group of a small group of a minority group knows of him, but he's on the Internet, and so Wikipedia voters have heard of him. Tell me that this is a name people will encounter and need explained to them. Geogre 15:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Wiki shouldn't remove Entries because some people have a political agenda.- ic0n0- Another anonymous - rernst 13:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep Reggie is a notable and personable person, and does not deserve to have his listing removed just because someone disagrees with him. Political and Religious agendas are NOT a good reason to remove anyone's entry.SvZurich- Yes, but non-notability, horribly biased writing and militant anonymous users might be reasons... This makes three... - rernst 13:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I do not understand what was wrong with what i said before to indicate a crossout. Articles submitted shouldn’t be removed simply because there is political disagreement. Certainly all sides should be addressed and included, but all I said was that they shouldn’t be removed; this is hardly a “Militant” Stand. I am a member of wiki, and have been for sometime, my old account was deleted becasue of disuse. As for Horribly biased writing, I suggest you add some content if you find it so objectionable, it wouldn’t be very difficult. - ic0n0
- Votes by anonymous users don't count. That's the way it is. Personally, I'm sick and tired of seeing anonymous users put crap in articles. I'd rather see this article be deleted, but my concern for wikipedia overrides my personal grudges. The article wasn't VFD'd because of political disagreement, but instead because it was horribly POV, and was suspected vanity. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and material that can be abbreviated to "this guy is so great and is always right and and and...." is not encyclopedic and does not belong. - rernst 15:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I do not understand what was wrong with what i said before to indicate a crossout. Articles submitted shouldn’t be removed simply because there is political disagreement. Certainly all sides should be addressed and included, but all I said was that they shouldn’t be removed; this is hardly a “Militant” Stand. I am a member of wiki, and have been for sometime, my old account was deleted becasue of disuse. As for Horribly biased writing, I suggest you add some content if you find it so objectionable, it wouldn’t be very difficult. - ic0n0
- Yes, but non-notability, horribly biased writing and militant anonymous users might be reasons... This makes three... - rernst 13:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I simply don't understand how just writing "Vanity" is "reasoning". This does not fit the criteria in the policy. Keep. Dr Zen 00:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Wiki, wiki, wiki... Just when I thought this was an objective and unbiased place to get information you go ahead and do this. What am I supposed to think now? Next thing you know you'll put in that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Oh yeah, delete that thing about evolution for we all know we didn't come from rocks! *Chuckle* - astroboy
Though I've got a slight bias against this guy, but I'll say keep on two conditions: the anonymous supporters of this guy lay of the anonymous voting and help re-write the article so it's not so POV.- rernst 13:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)- delete and redirect - rernst 04:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- See Talk:Infidel_Guy
- Keep. Even Wikipedia voters have heard of him. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:00, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Would anyone have a problem if I just redirected this page to Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr.? It seems to be more biographical and has less POV problems. --Ic0n0 13:41, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- User's only contributions are on this article - rernst 15:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see why that matters. --Ic0n0 03:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Generally it's a good thing to point out users who've signed up just to vote on an article. I usually do it automatically. Don't take offense to it: it's also a precautionary measure against Sock puppets. - rernst 04:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Although these may be Ic0n0's lone contributions, he does make a valid point. The Reginald Vaughn Finley, Sr. article has been in existence since September 7th. That article should be merged and redirected to Infidel Guy (not vice-versa). [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 19:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Generally it's a good thing to point out users who've signed up just to vote on an article. I usually do it automatically. Don't take offense to it: it's also a precautionary measure against Sock puppets. - rernst 04:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see why that matters. --Ic0n0 03:29, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- User's only contributions are on this article - rernst 15:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.